Explore the vast range of titles available.

This clinical practice guideline addresses six questions related to liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults. It is the result of a collaborative effort between the American Thoracic Society and the American College of Chest Physicians. A multidisciplinary panel posed six clinical questions in a Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes format. A comprehensive literature search and evidence synthesis was performed for each question, which included appraising the certainty in the evidence (i.e., the quality of evidence) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The Evidence-to-Decision framework was applied to each question, requiring the panel to evaluate and weigh the importance of the problem, the confidence in the evidence, the certainty about how much the public values the main outcomes, the magnitude and balance of desirable and undesirable outcomes, the resources and costs associated with the intervention, the impact on health disparities, and the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated and graded initially by subcommittees and then modified after full-panel discussions. The recommendations were confirmed by confidential electronic voting; approval required that at least 80% of the panel members agree with the recommendation. The panel provides recommendations regarding liberation from mechanical ventilation. The details regarding the evidence and rationale for each recommendation are presented in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine and Chest.

Intensive care survivors often experience post-intensive care sequelae, which are frequently gathered together under the term “post-intensive care syndrome” (PICS). The consequences of PICS on quality of life, health-related costs and hospital readmissions are real public health problems. In the present Viewpoint, we summarize current knowledge and gaps in our understanding of PICS and approaches to management.

Racial and ethnic disparities in the delivery and outcomes of critical care are well documented. However, interventions to mitigate these disparities are less well understood. We sought to review the current state of evidence for interventions to promote equity in critical care processes and patient outcomes. Four bibliographic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL, and Embase) and a list of core journals, conference abstracts, and clinical trial registries were queried with a pre-specified search strategy. We analyzed the content of interventions by categorizing each as single- or multi-component, extracting each intervention component during review, and grouping intervention components according to strategy to identify common approaches. The search strategy yielded 11,509 studies. Seven-thousand seventeen duplicate studies were removed, leaving 4,491 studies for title and abstract screening. After screening, 93 studies were included for full-text review. After full-text review by two independent reviewers, eleven studies met eligibility criteria. We identified ten distinct intervention components under five broad categories: education, communication, standardization, restructuring, and outreach. Most examined effectiveness using pre-post or other non-randomized designs. Despite widespread recognition of disparities in critical care outcomes, few interventions have been evaluated to address disparities in the ICU. Many studies did not describe the rationale or targeted disparity mechanism for their intervention design. There is a need for randomized, controlled evaluations of interventions that target demonstrated mechanisms for disparities to promote equity in critical care.

Interventions that lead to earlier liberation from mechanical ventilation can improve patient outcomes. This guideline, a collaborative effort between the American Thoracic Society and the American College of Chest Physicians, provides evidence-based recommendations to optimize liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults. Two methodologists performed evidence syntheses to summarize available evidence relevant to key questions about liberation from mechanical ventilation. The methodologists appraised the certainty in the evidence (i.e., the quality of evidence) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and summarized the results in evidence profiles. The guideline panel then formulated recommendations after considering the balance of desirable consequences (benefits) versus undesirable consequences (burdens, adverse effects, and costs), the certainty in the evidence, and the feasibility and acceptability of various interventions. Recommendations were rated as strong or conditional. The guideline panel made four conditional recommendations related to rehabilitation protocols, ventilator liberation protocols, and cuff leak tests. The recommendations were for acutely hospitalized adults mechanically ventilated for more than 24 hours to receive protocolized rehabilitation directed toward early mobilization, be managed with a ventilator liberation protocol, be assessed with a cuff leak test if they meet extubation criteria but are deemed high risk for postextubation stridor, and be administered systemic steroids for at least 4 hours before extubation if they fail the cuff leak test. The American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians recommendations are intended to support healthcare professionals in their decisions related to liberating critically ill adults from mechanical ventilation.

Purpose Targeted temperature management (TTM) may improve survival and functional outcome in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), though the optimal target temperature remains unknown. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of deep hypothermia (31–32 °C), moderate hypothermia (33–34 °C), mild hypothermia (35–36 °C), and normothermia (37–37.8 °C) during TTM. Methods We searched six databases from inception to June 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating TTM in comatose OHCA survivors. Two reviewers performed screening, full text review, and extraction independently. The primary outcome of interest was survival with good functional outcome. We used GRADE to rate our certainty in estimates. Results We included 10 RCTs (4218 patients). Compared with normothermia, deep hypothermia (odds ratio [OR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73–2.30), moderate hypothermia (OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.92–1.94) and mild hypothermia (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.74–2.80) may have no effect on survival with good functional outcome (all low certainty). Deep hypothermia may not improve survival with good functional outcome, as compared to moderate hypothermia (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.61–1.54, low certainty). Moderate hypothermia (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.86–1.77) and deep hypothermia (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.70–2.32) may have no effect on survival, as compared to normothermia. Finally, incidence of arrhythmia was higher with moderate hypothermia (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.08–1.94) and deep hypothermia (OR 3.58, 95% CI 1.77–7.26), compared to normothermia (both high certainty). Conclusions Mild, moderate, or deep hypothermia may not improve survival or functional outcome after OHCA, as compared to normothermia. Moderate and deep hypothermia were associated with higher incidence of arrhythmia. Routine use of moderate or deep hypothermia in comatose survivors of OHCA may potentially be associated with more harm than benefit.

Profound muscle weakness during and after critical illness is termed intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICUAW). To develop diagnostic recommendations for ICUAW. A multidisciplinary expert committee generated diagnostic questions. A systematic review was performed, and recommendations were developed using the Grading, Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Severe sepsis, difficult ventilator liberation, and prolonged mechanical ventilation are associated with ICUAW. Physical rehabilitation improves outcomes in heterogeneous populations of ICU patients. Because it may not be feasible to provide universal physical rehabilitation, an alternative approach is to identify patients most likely to benefit. Patients with ICUAW may be such a group. Our review identified only one case series of patients with ICUAW who received physical therapy. When compared with a case series of patients with ICUAW who did not receive structured physical therapy, evidence suggested those who receive physical rehabilitation were more frequently discharged home rather than to a rehabilitative facility, although confidence intervals included no difference. Other interventions show promise, but fewer data proving patient benefit existed, thus precluding specific comment. Additionally, prior comorbidity was insufficiently defined to determine its influence on outcome, treatment response, or patient preferences for diagnostic efforts. We recommend controlled clinical trials in patients with ICUAW that compare physical rehabilitation with usual care and further research in understanding risk and patient preferences. Research that identifies treatments that benefit patients with ICUAW is necessary to determine whether the benefits of diagnostic testing for ICUAW outweigh its burdens.

Background Long COVID, an infection‐associated chronic condition characterised by new or worsening signs or symptoms for more than 3 months after a SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, is a chronic debilitating illness which remains poorly understood. Epistemic injustice in healthcare describes the unique harms or wrongs done to a person in their capacity to share and acquire knowledge about their illness. Although the concept of epistemic injustice has been described in other chronic conditions, few studies have explored these concepts in Long COVID. Objectives (1) To understand the lived experience of epistemic injustice in adults with Long COVID who were participating in a peer support group intervention and (2) to describe the potential impact of the support group on these experiences in participants. Methods Qualitative analysis utilising inductive analysis of semi‐structured individual interviews of patients with Long COVID who participated in a peer support group intervention at an academic medical centre in Oregon, USA. Results We identified three themes that captured the lived experiences of epistemic injustice in Long COVID support group participants: (1) dismissal and disregard; (2) episodic and unpredictable symptoms and impairment, and (3) knowledge and interpretation practices. We also found that the peer support potentially impacted these experiences of epistemic injustice through (1) recognition and validation; (2) solidarity and community, and (3) information exchange and expectation setting. Conclusions Long COVID patients are at risk of experiencing epistemic injustice in seeking healthcare for this complex condition. Peer support programmes may be one approach to help counter these experiences and should be further studied as a complex intervention for improving patient‐centred care in Long COVID.

Existing studies of risk factors for physical impairments in acute lung injury (ALI) survivors were potentially limited by single-center design or relatively small sample size. To evaluate risk factors for three measures of physical impairments commonly experienced by survivors of ALI in the first year after hospitalization. A prospective, longitudinal study of 6- and 12-month physical outcomes (muscle strength, 6-minute-walk distance, and Short Form [SF]-36 Physical Function score) for 203 survivors of ALI enrolled from 12 hospitals participating in the ARDS Network randomized trials. Multivariable regression analyses evaluated the independent association of critical illness-related variables and intensive care interventions with impairments in each physical outcome measure, after adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, and baseline functional status. At 6 and 12 months, respectively, mean (± SD) values for strength (presented as proportion of maximum strength score evaluated using manual muscle testing) was 92% (± 8%) and 93% (± 9%), 6-minute-walk distance (as percent-predicted) was 64% (± 22%) and 67% (± 26%), and SF-36 Physical Function score (as percent-predicted) was 61% (± 36%) and 67% (± 37%). After accounting for patient baseline status, there was significant association and statistical interaction of mean daily dose of corticosteroids and intensive care unit length of stay with impairments in physical outcomes. Patients had substantial impairments, from predicted values, for 6-minute-walk distance and SF-36 Physical Function outcome measures. Minimizing corticosteroid dose and implementing existing evidence-based methods to reduce duration of intensive care unit stay and associated patient immobilization may be important interventions for improving ALI survivors' physical outcomes.

Background Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and volume overload are associated with increased hospital mortality. Evidence supports conservative fluid management in ARDS, but whether current practice reflects the implementation of that evidence has not been described. This study reports the variability in contemporary fluid management for ICU patients with ARDS. We compared routine care to trial protocols and analyzed whether more conservative management with diuretic medications in contemporary, usual care is associated with outcomes. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study in nine ICUs at two academic hospitals during 2016 and 2017. We included 234 adult patients with ARDS in an ICU at least 3 days after meeting moderate-severe ARDS criteria (PaO 2 :FIO 2 ≤ 150). The primary exposure was any diuretic use in 48 to 72 h after meeting ARDS criteria. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. Unadjusted statistical analyses and multivariable logistic regression were used. Results In 48–72 h after meeting ARDS criteria, 116 patients (50%) received a diuretic. In-hospital mortality was lower in the group that received diuretics than in the group that did not (14% vs 25%; p = 0.025). At ARDS onset, both groups had similar Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores and ICU fluid balances. During the first 48 h after ARDS, the diuretic group received less crystalloid fluid than the no diuretic group (median [inter-quartile range]: 1.2 L [0.2–2.8] vs 2.4 L [1.2-5.0]; p < 0.001), but both groups received more fluid from medications and nutrition than from crystalloid. At 48 h, the prevalence of volume overload (ICU fluid balance >10% of body weight) in each group was 16% and 25%( p = 0.09), respectively. During 48–72 h after ARDS, the overall prevalence of shock was 44% and similar across both groups. Central venous pressure was recorded in only 18% of patients. Adjusting for confounders, early diuretic use was independently associated with lower hospital mortality (AOR 0.46, 95%CI [0.22, 0.96]). Conclusions In this sample of ARDS patients, volume overload was common, and early diuretic use was independently associated with lower hospital mortality. These findings support the importance of fluid management in ARDS and suggest opportunities for further study and implementation of conservative fluid strategies into usual care.

Background Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (HRF) is associated with high morbidity and mortality, but its heterogeneity challenges the identification of effective therapies. Defining subphenotypes with distinct prognoses or biologic features can improve therapeutic trials, but prior work has focused on ARDS, which excludes many acute HRF patients. We aimed to characterize persistent and resolving subphenotypes in the broader HRF population. Methods In this secondary analysis of 2 independent prospective ICU cohorts, we included adults with acute HRF, defined by invasive mechanical ventilation and PaO 2 -to-FIO 2 ratio ≤ 300 on cohort enrollment ( n  = 768 in the discovery cohort and n  = 1715 in the validation cohort). We classified patients as persistent HRF if still requiring mechanical ventilation with PaO 2 -to-FIO 2 ratio ≤ 300 on day 3 following ICU admission, or resolving HRF if otherwise. We estimated relative risk of 28-day hospital mortality associated with persistent HRF, compared to resolving HRF, using generalized linear models. We also estimated fold difference in circulating biomarkers of inflammation and endothelial activation on cohort enrollment among persistent HRF compared to resolving HRF. Finally, we stratified our analyses by ARDS to understand whether this was driving differences between persistent and resolving HRF. Results Over 50% developed persistent HRF in both the discovery ( n  = 386) and validation ( n  = 1032) cohorts. Persistent HRF was associated with higher risk of death relative to resolving HRF in both the discovery (1.68-fold, 95% CI 1.11, 2.54) and validation cohorts (1.93-fold, 95% CI 1.50, 2.47), after adjustment for age, sex, chronic respiratory illness, and acute illness severity on enrollment (APACHE-III in discovery, APACHE-II in validation). Patients with persistent HRF displayed higher biomarkers of inflammation (interleukin-6, interleukin-8) and endothelial dysfunction (angiopoietin-2) than resolving HRF after adjustment. Only half of persistent HRF patients had ARDS, yet exhibited higher mortality and biomarkers than resolving HRF regardless of whether they qualified for ARDS. Conclusion Patients with persistent HRF are common and have higher mortality and elevated circulating markers of lung injury compared to resolving HRF, and yet only a subset are captured by ARDS definitions. Persistent HRF may represent a clinically important, inclusive target for future therapeutic trials in HRF.